Shoddy review of AR-Mini in Popular Communications

[eorange]

Being a fan of my Yaesu VR-500, I was interested in the review of the AOR AR-Mini in the June 2009 issue of Popular Communications.

The review was pretty shallow. The piece read like a school book report on the specifications, and that's it. No practical overview of how to do basic things like tuning the VFO, or programming a memory. Was it a lot of keystrokes?

How did the speaker sound? Weak & tinny, or adequate for its size?

How was the receive performance? Any intermod? Spurious/adjacent signal rejection?

How about overall performance on AM shortwave, VHF and UHF airband, other bands? Was it deaf? Fairly sensitive?

What about stock antenna performance? Does it overload on a longwire?

Did you even turn the radio on and use it for any length of time?

What a disappointing article.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by eorange

What a disappointing article.

It's a disappointing magazine.

[rankin39]

A lot of "reviews" in various popular electronics magazines are just another form of advertising -- and likely paid for by the manufacturer. About the only ones I really trust are the in-depth ones in QST. I'm afraid I stopped buying "PoopCan" a long time ago.
Bob

[pdfdems286]

yup, i stopped renewing/buying popcom and monitoring time's. although the founding editor's of both pub's have contributed to the hobby,the mag's left a lot to be desired.i found the review's in m.t. to be biased toward getting the reader to buy the radio.i would rather come to this site and read a review.even thru my dealing's with the people that i've sold radio's to,i've alway's given my honest opinion of the radio.i did find the article's in m.t. somewhat more useful than the one's in popcom.

[jack103]

I really miss STRONG SIGNALS reviews Rich Wells gave outstanding reviews too bad hes unable to continue.

[eorange]

Agreed, no one ever provided the level of detail like Rich did in his reviews.

[commscanaus]

A long time subscriber to both Popcomm and Monitoring times here, up until 2 years ago when the cost of international airmail made the price prohibitive.

Used to read them both from cover to cover and enjoy them. Sadly, many of the good columnists gave up the writing and retired, leaving the magazine to find new people. Those that took their place really tried, but due to readers not contributing material, the magazines are unable to write themselves.

The internet has also taken it's toll. By the time the magazines hits the stores, the information may be out of date and already being debated on sites such as this. It is much easier to get users experience and advice with new equipment in hours rather than weeks.

The advertising is the magazines bread and butter, so it is only natural that they push their advertisers products, even in the guise of reviews.

I totally agree with the Strong Signals comments- Rich Wells is a fantastic reviewer and I greatly enjoyed his website. The time he put in must have been quite monumental and after the birth of his first baby, understandably this could not continue. At least his efforts are still online and can be used as reference.

Reviews of hobbyist radio gear is a labor of love and not something that is going to pay off the house, so we must not be too critical of those who try.
I have not read the AOR review so cannot comment there.

Maybe we need a reviewers thread here on RR?

Commscanaus.

[MPSCS]

Rich Wells, and Bob Parnass wrote the best radio reviews ever!

[MPSCS]

Here is a good review of the AOR-mini:

AOR AR-Mini review

[DaveIN]

Thanks for the link to that one. I enjoy his reviews on other radios.

[N8IAA]

Consider that the radio is a rebadged Icom R-5 and go from there.
Larry